ON
SYLLABIC MELODY OF NANNAYA’S POETRY
PROF. SALVA KRISHNAMURTHI
Simplicity
of pattern, lucidity, beauty, all-inclusiveness, universality and maadhurya are fundamental to literary art. Maadhurya is by definition ‘anubhava paunahpunya kshamatva’.
In other words, the inexhaustible capacity to yield a pleasurable
experience every-time is called maadhurya.
Poetry is the most representative mode of
composition in all literary art. In no other mode of composition, not even in
drama, are the latent potentialities of language harnessed and exploited so
thoroughly and exhaustively. A poetic work of art or Kaavya, as an organic whole has its internal and external
aspects. Thus the traditional literary elements can be represented by five
sheaths with their internal and external aspects.
Internal External
Sheath
Rasa
Dhvani Anandamaya
kosa
Paaka Sayya Vijnaanamaya kosa
Vritti Reeti Manomaya kosa
Guna
Alamkaara Praanamaya kosa
Artha Sabda Annamaya kosa
The
internal aspects tend to aid more and manifest in the next higher external
aspect. Thus consider the numerous arthaalamkaaras, gunas go to
make Reeti; Vritti goes
to condition the Sayya; Paaka facilitates
the comprehension of Dhvani which in turn melts into rasa by caruana. Melody in
a poem is maadhurya mentioned above and cannot be
restricted to the verbal plane alone though it has its own important part to
play. It has to extend to both the spheres of sound and sense. Since melody is
an attribute or qualification, a composition of ideal melody can be envisaged
when the literary elements are qualified by literary gunas. Bharata considering these gunas as important
as praanas has enumerated them into ten. Thus (1) slishta pada (2) prasanna artha (3) guna with a
touch of samataa (4) alamkaara
with samaadhi guna (5) vritti
with maadhurya guna (6) reeti
with ojo guna (7) paaka
with pada saukumaarya (8) sayyaa with artha vyakti guna
!9) dhvani with udaara
guna and (10) rasa with kaanti
guna would make for optimum melody when couched in the thirty-six modes of
artistic expression called “Lakshanas” by the sage
himself. If composed this way the resultant texture of a poem is found to be
unique and inimitable as in the case of Vaalmiki in
Sanskrit and Nannaya in Telugu.
Dr
V. V. L. Narasimha Rao’s “Nannaya
Kavitvamu Akshararamyata” is a scholarly attempt to make a
perceptive study of akshararamyata of Nannaya’s
Andhra Mahabharata comprising of Adi, Sabha parvas and a portion of Aranya parva. This work is Dr Rao’s
Doctoral thesis submitted to
For
the Vedic origins of the story and the three renditions of Bharata, namely Jaya, Bharata and Mahabharata and the times of their
authors, Vyasa and others one can profitably refer one self to the book
“Bharata caritra Parikshaa”
written by the late seer Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni and available both
in Sanskrit and Telugu. Suffice it here to say that Bharata was written at a
time when the Supreme Lord was called Indra and the highest abode to aspire for
was called Swarga. Mahabharata itself says that
Nannaya was a ritualist and mimamsaka. He
described himself as nityasatyavacana, samhitaabhyaasa,
avirala japa homatatpara. He undertook to translate Bharata into
Telugu at a time when there was complete hostility towards Vedic religion and
sacrifices. “Abhilashitaartha Cintamani”
of Calukya Somadeva of the same
period (11th century) has a sloka which ends with “naasti yajna samoripuh”
meaning that there is no enemy worse than a Vedic sacrifice. His literary
career came at a time when the preponderance of Sanskrit vocabulary had already
established even in Telugu formulating a sonorous style of composition and
before the emergence of the Desi movement which was
part of a world-wide phenomenon of the Vernacular movement during the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. So it will be a folly to delimit the syllabic melody
to the verbal plane alone and give full credit to him just because no other Kavya of the contemporary period is available.
Inscriptional verses come in the way. Again it is to be remembered that Nannaya made his part of the work also a sastra-kavya and there is positive evidence of it though it
is doubtful whether the same can be said of Tikkana
and Errana who completed the rest of Bharata.
In
his introductory verses Nannaya has written to this
effect: Naonayabhatta, a mine of maxims of the
abiding, has, for the good of the world, undertaken the composition of Bharatasamhita in Telugu in such a way that kavindras with foresight would commend the purposeful
action embedded in the lucid stories and others would appreciate the akshararamyata. This verse is the starting point for all
literary criticism about Nannaya and also a source of
controversy.
What
many scholars missed to notice is that Vyasa’s phrase
‘sukshmaartha nyaya samyuktaa’ has been changed by Nannaya
into ‘rucirartha sukti nidhi’ denoting a personal qualification. Rucirartha suktis are nothing but
sukshmaartha nyayas. They
are mimamsaa nyayas. By kavindras with foresight Nannaya
meant only scholars in mimamsa and not ordinary
poets. ‘Sabda , saamaanyam abhideyam; viseshasca arthah – is a dictum in mimamsa.
Though the word kavindras would ordinarily seem to
refer to poets only the real reference is to mimamasakas.
The words ‘saaramati’, ‘kavindrulu’,
‘arthayukti’, ‘melu’, ‘rucirartha’ used in the verse have, all of them, mimamsa undertones. Do the mimamsakas
see poetic imagination in Bharata? They would be interested in seeing how
finely each story allegorically represents a mimamsa nyaya or item of interest. So, the reading ‘prasanna katha kavitaartha yukti “ though found in a majority of manuscripts, cannot be
accepted, ‘Kathaa kalita artha yukti’ alone will meet the
situation. The question arises then as to who are the others
that would appreciate ‘akshararamyata’. It is
the non-mimamsakas like poets and sahridayas.
Dr.
Rao has taken up this ‘akshararamyataa’ appreciated
by non-mimansakas for his exploration and study. But
what is akshararamyataa? Ordinarily it means syllabic
melody, strictly it means ‘the abiding sweetness’
which is nothing but maadhurya spoken of at the
beginning.
Dr.
Rao makes a beginning by devoting the first chapter to the enumeration of the
three major poetic qualities of Nannaya, namely (1) Prasanna kathaa kavita / kalita arthayukti (2) Akshara ramyata and (3) naanaarucirartha sukti nidhitva, examining the opinions of scholars about akshararamyata and deciding who exactly are those ‘others’
that appreciate aksharsramyata. Dr. Patibanda Madhava Sarma’s opinion that akshararamyata
comprises of all the poetic elements like Vritti, Reeti, Paaka, Sayya,
etc., seems to have helped the author in deciding to extend his exploration to
all the items. But Dr. Rao thinks kavindras only as
such and in his view ‘others’ are all other scholars and sahridayas.
But he has not realised the snag. At the end of
the third chapter in arriving at a definition of akshararamyata
he equates it with Jagannatha’s definition of Kavya which is as good a definition of poetry as of a Kavya. This equation results in akshraramyataa
becoming poetry itself. If so, what is it that kavindras
appreciate in prasanna katha
kavita artha yukti? In the technique of a story so
difficult to appreciate for ‘others’ (non-poets)
than the appreciation of poetry itself?
The
second chapter is naturally devoted to the nature of syllables (aksharas), their origin and suggestivity,
their treatment in grammar, sphota, chandas, alamkarasastra.
One section has been devoted to ‘akshara samghaata’ one of the lakshanas
propounded by Bharata. These lakshanas are 36 in
number. They are the artistic modes of expression which, though retained by
later alamkarikas under the name of naatyaalamkaras, have become obsolete even in Sanskrit
literature. Surprisingly this lakshana tradition is
found extant in Telugu even as late as the 16th century, for instance in Peddana’s Manucaritra Great
service would have been rendered to Bharata as well as Nannaya
had the author chosen to explore the use of other lakshanas by Nannaya.
Akshararamyata
is sought to be defined in the third chapter,
wherein Nannaya’s point of view in syllabic
composition is considered. Akshararamyata, the
imperishable or abiding sweetness is only another name for maadhurya.
‘Akshara grahana’ is a
phrase commonly used by mimamsakas in the sense of
ability to recite Veda properly
without any external help. Nannaya would have easily
coined the compound ‘akshararamyata’ on analogy.
However, the author is unable to postulate any principle in Nannaya’s
point of view regarding akshara sannivesa.
Yet holds it to be not-unpremeditated. The definition
of aksbararamyata is nothing but a bald equation of
it with Jagannatha’s definition of Kavya. It was not the intention of Nannaya
to write like other poets concentrating on “mrudu madhurya rasa bhava
bhasura navartha vacana racana.” He was rendering pancama veda
in Telugu. He wanted his verses to be memorable, easy to commit to memory, just
as Veda is committed to memory. It was more for this purpose that he configured
akshararamyata.
The author is on much better and solid ground in
chapter four where some good comparative study of Nannaya
and
The
suggesting of music and prosody, musical element and melody in Nannaya’s composition, are examined in the fifth chapter.
Preponderance of either lyrical element or intellectual element is not enough
justification to classify poetry into poetry that sings and poetry that speaks.
It is the maadhurya that sings. Again it is the maadhurya that reverberates the
theme in continuum which the author calls akshatanaada.
This postulate of akshatanaada is not academic and
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is no objective test for verification.
The author if on a tenuous ground here. Does a single
reading justify acceptance and a critical postulate of doubtful existence? Why
not the same yardstick elsewhere?
The
most satisfying and adequate part of the book is the sixth chapter wherein prosodaical beauties, Nannaya’s yatis, praasas, variety of his metres, aksharaa chandas, maatraa
chandas are studied. This is rewarding to all
students of Telugu literature.
Coming
to the more literary part of Nannaya’s Bharata it may
be convenient to touch upon chapters 9, 8 and 7, in this order.
The
ninth chapter describes the intention of Rajanarendra
and Nannaya’s desire in writing Bharata, Nannaya’s Iswaraagama bhakti, his
unswerving faith in the Vedic path, Karmajnanamargas
and his attitude to literature as a literary sacrifice. This chapter is more
communicative to the reader. But what did Rajanarendra
want from Vyasabharata?–the real thing or the verbal
meaning? The author is perhaps not wise in accepting the variant reading ‘bharata sabda nirupitaartha’;
‘bharata baddha nirupitaartha’ ought to have been accepted. The following sloka will justify the contention:
‘Mantra hradaat
kathaa kulyaa vidyaa kedaaramaagataa
mokshasriyah prasoor madhye peeyate karma maargagaih.”
Vedamantras
are like a lake from where canals in the form of small stories flow and
irrigate the field of wisdom and result in rearing moksha.
On the way those who are on the path of action drink the waters (to quench
their thirst). In the small episodes and stories of Bharata is embeded or framed the Reality like water in canals. This is
the reason for Nannaya’s compound “prasanna katha kavita arthayukti.” Rajanarendra wanted the encased Reality. The author is not
correct, again, when he interprets the word ‘abhipraaya’
as religion; it means caturvargaphala. Sri Sankara in Vishnu Sahasranama
commentary writes thus: ‘abhiprayah abhipreyate purushartha, kaankshibhih aabhimukhyena’; we know purushaarthas
are four. Dr Rao is right in identifying ‘pratismrti vidyaa’ as pratyabhijna; yet it
is not clear why he tries to infer the existence of paasupata
vidya in Bharata where there is an explicit statement
about it: “nyaaya sikshaa cikitsaa ca daanam paasupatam tathaa”
commendable is the section on Iswaraagama bhakti
wherein the story of Nala and Damayanti
is commented upon.
Rasaraamaneeyaka
of Bharata, Nannaya’s secular and vedic styles, etc., are treated in chapter eight. The
main rasa is shaanta as
proclaimed by Dhvanikaara. The author upholds it even
in Nannaya’s work. Dr Patibanda
Madhava Sarma opined that in Andhra Mahabharata the
main rasa could be Dharmavira.
No one has so far clearly expressed himself in this regard. While Nannaya Bharata is a sastra-kavya
shaanta-oriented, the same is not certain about the
other two. Not being sure whether Andhra Bharati could be called a sastra-kaavya Dr Sarma had called it itihasakavya.
It is uncharitable on the part of Dr Rao to take Dr Sarma as if he said Vyasa Bharatha was not an itihasa. In
discussing the main rasa Dr Rao has taken up “shadvidha linga vicaara” which is proper for a sastra
or sastra-kavya. He is not correct in interpreting
the critical apparatus. ‘apoorvataa’
is not and cannot be ‘navinata’. Nannaya
himself has touched upon this in his introductory verse “Eyadi
hrdya mapoorvam beyadi’, etc. Upakrama, upasamhaaras apart its apoorvata
is being a Kavya on mimamsa;
wisdom result; hrdyata its upapatti.
Guna,
alamkara, vritti, reeti, paaka, sayya,
rasaucitya dhvanimaryaada in Nannaya’s work
are dealt with in the seventh chapter. The author holds that prasaada is the kavyaguna is Nannaya’s composition. He seems to have been carried away
by the occurrence of the word ‘prasanna’ in Nannaya’s compound “prasanna kathaa kalitaarthayukti.” If not
he should have shown the preponderance of lucidity over mere intelligibility
which is found in any kavya. Is not Nannaya’s Vaidika saili a hindrance to prasada?
Treatment of alamkara section is adequate. In
deciding Nannaya’s kavya vritti he follows Bhoja and calls
it madbyamaa vritti which
is not enlightening to the reader. Since the main rasa
is Shaanta, the vritti in
all Nannaya’s composition is Bharati; this is
justified by the mimamsa orientation of the work
also. Reeti is, of course, vaidarbhi.
Paaka and sayya are touched
upon. It would have been much better had the author not compounded Rasa, Aucitya and Dhvani into one
whole. Separate treatment would have been more illuminating.
The
last and tenth chapter suggests some problems for investigation. Appropriate
and useful indices are appended.
The
book is well-written and good in parts so far as the subject on hand is
concerned. It is valuable for any student of Telugu literature for its sheer
sweep of various branches of learning touched upon. Recommended
for educative and serious reading.
* Sree
Visweswara publications, Governorpet,
Vijayawada.2, Price: Rs. 40.